Opuscula Philolichenum, 6: 1-XXXX

Opuscula Philolichenum, 9: 89-98. 2011. How should we deal with the Antarctic and Subantarctic taxa published by Carroll William Dodge? 1 ALAN M. FRYDAY ABSTRACT. – The problems surrounding the Antarctic and Subantarctic taxonomic and nomenclatural novelties published by Carroll William Dodge are explained. Ways of dealing with these problems are compared, and a recommendation made as to the best way to resolve them. The nomenclatural changes that will be required if the proposed course of action is followed are listed. The generic name Huea C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker is shown to be an earlier name for Carbonea (Hertel) Hertel rather than a genus in the Teloschistaceae, and a lectotype is designated for Lecidea capsulata C. W. Dodge and G. E. Baker to replace the neotype selected by Hale. Huea grisea (Vain.) I.M. Lamb is shown to be the correct name for H. coralligera (Hue) C.W. Dodge, and the correct author citation of Hymenelia glacialis is shown to be Øvstedal not (C.W. Dodge) Øvstedal. INTRODUCTION In a series of fourteen publications from 1938-1973 Carroll William Dodge described over 350 new taxa of lichenized fungi (including 11 new genera) and made around 150 new combinations from the Antarctic and Subantarctic, all from other people’s collections (Dodge & Baker 1938, Dodge 1948, Dodge & Rudolph 1955, Dodge 1962, 1965a, 1965b, 1965c, 1966a, 1966b, 1968a, 1968b, 1969, 1970, 1973). The first two publications (Dodge & Baker 1938, Dodge 1948), dealing with collections made by the Second Byrd Antarctic Expedition (Dodge & Baker 1938) and the British, Australian, New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (B.A.N.Z.A.R.E.; Dodge 1948), are extensive treatise, both over 200 pages in length, with detailed descriptions, illustrations, and keys to species within genera, and give the appearance of being authoritative works. The other, later publications, however, include only descriptions of new taxa and new combinations; the former rarely including any comparative details separating the new taxa from already described ones, and the latter often made without any description or explanation. This contribution summarizes Dodge’s work and its subsequent interpretation, suggests four possible courses of action and recommends one of these that would minimize the adverse affect of Dodge’s work on the nomenclature of Antarctic and Subantarctic lichenized fungi, and upon lichenology in the region in general. CARROLL WILLIAM DODGE 1895–1988 Carroll W. Dodge was a well-respected figure in medical mycology (Dodge 1936) and hypogeous fungi (e.g., Dodge & Zeller 1934). He held positions at Harvard University (1921–31) and Washington University, St. Louis and the Missouri Botanical Garden (1931–63) and, after his retirement in 1963, as a Research Professor at the University of Vermont. He also taught courses on medical mycology in various South American countries from 1934–60. However, he also had an absorbing interest in lichens that went back to his undergraduate days, and these became his main preoccupation after his retirement. His earliest lichenological work was on the biota of his native NE North America (Dodge 1926), but it was a series of publications on the lichens of the neotropics (Dodge 1933, 1935, 1936) that established him as the leading American lichenologist of his day. Presumably, it was this that lead to him being asked to identify the lichens from the 2nd Byrd Antarctic Expedition, which he worked on with his post doctoral student Gladys 1 ALAN M. FRYDAY – Herbarium, Dept Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824- 1312. U.S.A. – e–mail: [email protected] 89 Baker. The publication of this work (Dodge & Baker 1938) further extended his perceived area of expertise and established him as the leading authority on Antarctic lichens and, consequently, he was asked to work on the B.A.N.Z.A.R E. collections when these became available (Dodge 1948). Soon after this he commenced his studies of African lichens (Dodge 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1964) and these two regions occupied him for the remaining 20 years of his lichenological career. Detailed biographical information, and a full list of Dodge's publications, is provided by Rudolph (1990). AN ASSESSMENT OF DODGE'S CONTRIBUTION TO ANTARCTIC LICHENOLOGY Llano (1951) in his review of the B.A.N.Z.A.R.E. Report (Dodge 1948) called it a “milestone in American Lichenology” but 26 years later, Almborn (1974) ended his highly critical review of Dodge’s Antarctic Lichen Flora (Dodge 1973), by quoting from a letter from “another eminent lichenologist otherwise known for his moderate judgment ‘This author has caused untold damage to taxonomic lichenology. His publications unfortunately cannot be simply ignored. Future serious lichenologists will have to spend much time and trouble in evaluating and identifying all his mainly useless taxa.’” So what caused this reversal of opinion? To some extent it was a more critical appraisal of Dodge's descriptions, which revealed numerous inaccuracies and omissions (Almborn 1974, Lindsay 1974), and his scant regard for, or lack of understanding of, the rules of botanical nomenclature that caused doubt about the accuracy of his work. Lindsay (1974), for example, notes that of the seven new species that Dodge (1973) described “five of these incorrectly as nomina nova, two of these five not validly published”, and also that “a number of new combinations published by Dodge are superfluous, since they have been published previously by other authors”, whereas Almborn (1974) notes that “the author has paid too little attention to formal details” and cites “a few examples (among hundreds)”. Also a factor was that Dodge was concurrently working on the taxonomy of African lichens (Dodge 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1964, 1971). The African lichen biota was far better known than that of the Antarctic and, therefore, it was easier to see that Dodge’s taxonomic concepts did not correspond to those of other workers (Almborn 1965, 1973). However the conclusive factor in the reappraisal of Dodge’s contribution to Antarctic lichenology was that Llano and his contemporaries did not have access to the collections upon which Dodge’s new taxa were based. Dodge kept all the collections upon which he worked, including the type specimens of his new species, in his private herbarium, and it was only when this, which amounted to 75,000 collections, was donated to the Farlow Herbarium (FH) at Harvard University in 1988 that they became available to other researchers. What they discovered was beyond their wildest expectations and reduced their already low assessment of Dodge’s contribution to taxonomic lichenology to almost zero. Castello and Nimis (1995), who were the first lichenologist to critically examine Dodge’s Antarctic collections after his death, describe Dodge’s type material thus: “What we discovered was beyond any expectation: some types were just fragments of unrecognizable sterile crusts, the same species was described several times under widely different generic names, the original descriptions do not comply with the characters of the types, the characters given for some species are a mixture of characters of different lichens growing together on the type collection”. One example of the results of Castello and Nimis’ (1995) investigation is reproduced here, but it is highly recommended that anyone who doubts the inaccuracies of Dodge’s work should read the complete article. Blastenia grisea C.W. Dodge and G.E. Baker The type (Siple & Corey 73-6) consists of two very small rock fragments; the label states that they should host Lecidea capsulata, Lecidea corei, and B. grisea. The fragments actually host a few, small thalli of crustose lichens, none of which has “dull orange to red black apothecia”; on the smaller fragment there is a sterile crust with black fimbriate hypothalline strands which corresponds to the description of the thallus of B. grisea. From the type it is impossible to understand what this species really is. In the herbarium there are a few other samples purported to be B. grisea, and cited in Dodge (1973); Llano 2741 and 2724a are badly developed Xanthoria elegans (Link) Th.Fr., Schofield AA-46 is a Caloplaca of the C. holocarpa-complex, and Simple et al. 73-4 is another, dark-fruited Caloplaca with a grey thallus (a single apothecium!). The name should be best abandoned. Hertel (1988) estimated that ca. 80% of the species created by Dodge would turn out to be synonyms, and this has been borne out by subsequent investigation. Castello and Nimis (1995) investigated the type material in FH of 152 of the 186 species described by Dodge and his co-workers from the 90 Antarctic continent and accepted only 31 (ca. 20%) as valid – and of these several were described in an incorrect genus and many others were so poorly developed that species-level identification was impossible. Of the remaining 121, they reduced 94 to synonymy with previously described taxa and dismissed the remainder (27) as either belonging to lichenicolous fungi or being indeterminable. The taxa described by Dodge from the Subantarctic have not been reviewed in the same detail but that they are no better than those he described from the Antarctic is confirmed by the author’s inspection of Dodge’s type material in FH, and the observation by Galloway (2004) that four of the five new species described by Dodge from the Snares Islands (Fineran 1969) are synonyms of previously described species, and the one that was genuinely new (Solenopsora sordida (C.W. Dodge) D.J. Galloway) was described in the unrelated genus Haematomma. To some extent, the plethora of superfluous taxa described by Dodge can be attributed to his belief in a narrow species concept (Rudolph 1990), such that any minor variation was described as a different species, and in narrow endemism (Almborn 1974) meaning that the same species could not exist in physically separated localities.

Load more